Martin & Corrinne Vernon – 3 Ryton Gardens, Bulkington CV12 9LD Ref: 1.0025 & 1.0026
Statement of Reply for Stage 2 – HSG7 /HSG8 – Thursday March 15 th 2018
Our reply is of a personal nature given our key roles are as members of Bulkington Residents Voice (BRV) therefore involved in BRV’s responses. Our house borders one of the fields on the call for sites register for HSG7 and, as our house sits parallel to Bramcote Close, we fully support BCR in their reply.
We would like to add the following comments in respect of HSG7:
NBBC Borough Plan originally did not include Bulkington but when NBBC were obligated to take some of Coventry’s “overspill” we believe the Call for Sites was widened and Bulkington included in a revised Borough Plan. We/Bulkington were not aware of this revised Plan, when the consultation period started we/Bulkington were totally caught out. NBBC gave Bulkington a 2 hour window in February 2017 - 3.15pm to 5.15pm - which we couldn’t attend due to being at work. As Bulkington was added late to the Plan we believe Bulkington should have been given extra consultation/consideration by NBBC. Certainly an evening consultation time to allow working people to attend.
To this day we believe HSG7 & HSG8 were allocated for Coventry overspill, without accurate numbers from Coventry, accurate numbers from our own Borough and most importantly an accurate up to date infrastructure development plan. An IDP would instantly show how inappropriate such a vast development for Bulkington, being classed as a village, would be. HSG7 includes the small area known as Ryton, which, like the rest of Bulkington has many terraced houses causing parking on main roads, several narrow roads, a difficult turning circle on Long Street and a huge wide junction at the end of Wolvey Road which traffic crosses to turn right towards Nuneaton.
NBBC/41 - This document a very poor reflection of Bulkingtons roads and clearly done as an afterthought and a very poor representation of the road needs:
1) No mention of Long Street/Bramcote Close/Arundel Road/Amberley Avenue & Lancing Road – all crucial to the development of HSG7. Perhaps the development doesn’t intend to use these access roads?
2) The document was prepared using data from Vodaphone users – a straw poll of BRV members showed none of us used Vodaphone.
3) No mention of St James School C of E School which also takes children from local villages and they are coached in –the coach/s stop (as I have seen two parked up) on the main thoroughfare Nuneaton Road causing congestion every morning. Coach/s are parked whilst children alight, in front of the place where coaches stop is a school crossing traffic warden – who has to stop traffic regardless of coaches as & when children need to cross, both at the same time causes traffic to come to a complete stop on this very busy main road. 25/1/18
4) The secondary school serving Bulkington – Nicholas Chamberlain School is in Bedworth – is accessed along a 50 mile an hour road with a sharp bend and a footpath that narrows in places and in places does not exist on both sides of the road. It would not accommodate groups of schoolchildren walking or riding to school. The report makes no reference to this whatsoever, yet the housing developments are stated as being for families. 5) Home owners in Long Street & Wolvey Road park on the road, common in a village environment. Likewise vehicles are parked either side of the road on New Street due to the flats there not have allocated parking – where do the Council propose these people park as surely this and other main arteries will require double yellow lines to ensure smooth flow of traffic? 6) No allowance made for vehicles turning right from Wolvey Road SB towards Nuneaton, its a T junction situated between the Rugby Road/New Street junctions and the Withybrook Road/Rugby Road/Shilton Lane junctions. This junction is difficult now to negotiate, much less with additional volumes of traffic. 7) The report has been created in isolation – no consideration made to huge volumes of traffic the development in HSG9 will create or the development in Wolvey to the North of Ryton/Bulkington whose traffic will travel SB on the Wolvey Road to continue onwards to the M6 junction 2. 8) Point 53 suggests “slight increase in the queueing on Wolvey Road SB” again I ask is HSG7 not going to access Bramcote Close/Long Street? 9) Point 55 – of course Bulkington will see higher than expected growth – HSG9 traffic will impact massively & there is no mention of The New Inn Public House development which will access onto the Wolvey Road & sits on the Rugby Road/New Street junction. 10) Are WCC really going to consider spending 1.5 million on a village development stated as “relatively small” see Point 56?
Finally I question the report as whole as Figure 9 & Figure 10 are labelled as “Plough Hill Road (Vehicles). WE DO NOT HAVE A PLOUGH HILL ROAD IN BULKINGTON
HOW MUCH OF THE DATA REFERS TO SOMEWHERE ELSE ?
This field is part of HSG7 and is directly behind our house & sits 16 feet from our actual property.
The field we border is a crop producing field:
These photos were taken 1.8.2017
We are going to let the pictures speak for themselves.
In addition NBBC have announced a large development on the Calendar farm/A5 site of 850 homes – Nuneaton Telegraph Wednesday January 24 th 2018 . 850 houses over & above the figures surely means Bulkington greenbelt and possibly some other areas, can be left alone. A windfall site opposite Marston Lane, which is between Whitestone & Bulkington will yield another 30 houses approx., and the New Inn Pub development - numbers as yet unknown - as previously mentioned.
Other sites are being developed with or without planning permission – this article appeared in the Nuneaton Telegraph Thursday December 28 th 2017 -
People are living in homes on a new development in Nuneaton that have been built WITHOUT planning permission.
It has come to light that up to 30 homes on the Davidsons ‘Church Fields’ development in Weddington have been built without being given the green light by Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council. A mix-up over timescales between the national housebuilder is being blamed so now Davidsons has had to apply for retrospective planning permission despite the fact that some of the properties in the second phase of the development have been built and people are already living in them.
Councillor Keith Kondakor was staggered to learn the news: “There are people living in houses that do not have planning permission, all because the council does not know what it is doing. It is shocking.”
Some homes in Phase 2 of the development have been built without planning permission.
Iain Pickering, Design Director of Davidsons Homes , said: “Our reserved matters application for phase 2 at Church Fields was submitted, accepted, and subsequently approved in good faith. “We have been working closely with the planning department at Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council to resolve this matter, and the submission of our new application has been made to regularise the situation.
“As a responsible developer, we opted to send a letter out to our residents at Church Fields to inform them of the situation and the steps being taken to rectify it.”
He concluded: “We are committed to keeping our residents fully updated until the matter has been concluded in the next few weeks.”
A Town Hall spokesperson said “It was a genuine error on behalf of the developer who submitted a type of application for which the timespan had run out. The council approved this application in good faith. The present application is just to regularise the situation.”
FINALLY
Mr Spencer – you & your fellow colleagues across the country hold this countries land in your hands. Once the Greenbelt becomes zoned for development it is lost, whether the houses are built in my lifetime or not. We object to HSG7 & HSG8 because we see the field producing food; we have participated in the residents group against the development because we have a moral responsibility to future generations to preserve greenbelt land.